What are your controversial Star Trek opinions?

Mao Zedong
Joseph Stalin

 

Truth.

 

I mean with those three singling any of them out as the "worst" is really an exercise in pointlessness and futility. They all killed and brutalized millions of people, with a good chunk of their victims being their own citizens. You can also ad Pol Pot to make it a quartet.

 

this is fantastic. Thank you for sharing

 

Two real rules:
Never take yourself seriously.
Don't sweat the small shit.

Two real principles:
Be excellent to each other.
Don't make us make a rule.

 

It's a ghodd-damn TV show.

One good thing you can say about Hitler is he killed Hitler.

 

No disrespect, but a great deal of your posts seem to be a reaction to this "brigade". If they post here just put those posters on ignore and move on. I'd like to talk Discovery or Picard, but you and other fans come across as so defensive that as a TNG/DS9 fan I've started just scrolling past your posts after I see the same complaints repeated.

I subscribe to the idea that the galactic barrier envelopes the galaxy, so they could've been going "up" or "down".

No, gatekeeping is more along the lines of excluding the fans that like the content/shows/versions you don't (You like *fill in show the gatekeeper doesn't like*? You're not a true fan.), or are new to the franchise and don't know it well yet (Please; you haven't even read the unlicensed technical manual from 1979???). Gatekeepers can have any personal preference.

How so?

 

You are not a true fan unless:

You are powered by electricity.
You have flat angled blades that move air.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_fan

 

Trufans™ stay cool even when you're getting hot.

 

The only Star Trek episodes worth watching are the ones with Brian Brophy in it.

 

Lack of challenging viewpoints is the equivalent of tacit agreement that they're right, especially for a series that's still in active production.

Pushback in both directions is the way this works.

 

I don't think so.

In fact, assigning a position to people who don't reply is the equivalent of putting words in people's mouths.

With the possible exception of moderators and admin when it's their job to post, no one is obligated to reply to any post online, whether they agree or disagree with it.

Posting is a personal decision. And I just happened to feel that my position in disagreement with your post was something that I wanted to share. In particular, I feel somewhat offended that someone might construe that I agree with a position (including possibly an offensive one) that, for whatever reason, I do not respond to, whether it's because I have something else I'd rather do instead of directly engaging or because I am simply unaware of what's going on in a particular corner of the Internet.

 

If only we had some kind of fandom just for Star Trek. Some kinda of... site only for fans an..Onlyfans.

 

My member videos will be very divisive and controversial.

 

This is a thread for controversial opinions, not objective fact.

 

For that you're getting three.

And I don't mean videos.